{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-0007-121480",
  "citation": "Res. 18597-2007 Sala Constitucional",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "constitutional_decision",
  "title_es": "Omisión de consulta previa a comunidades indígenas en convenio AYA-CONAI",
  "title_en": "Omission of Prior Consultation with Indigenous Communities in AYA-CONAI Agreement",
  "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional conoció un recurso de amparo contra la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (CONAI) y el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA) por la omisión de realizar una consulta previa a las comunidades indígenas antes de aprobar el “Convenio marco de cooperación, inversión y operación conjunta” entre ambas entidades. La parte recurrente alegó que no se escuchó a la Comunidad de Guatuso ni a otras comunidades, vulnerando así sus derechos fundamentales y las disposiciones del Convenio 169 de la OIT. La Sala determinó que tanto el artículo 6° del Convenio 169 como el artículo 9° reformado de la Constitución Política imponen la obligación de consultar a los pueblos indígenas mediante procedimientos apropiados cada vez que se prevean medidas administrativas susceptibles de afectarles directamente. Las autoridades recurridas omitieron conceder esa audiencia previa, lo que constituye una actuación ilegítima y lesiva del Derecho de la Constitución. Por ello, la Sala declaró con lugar el recurso, advirtiendo a las autoridades que en el futuro no deben incurrir en las omisiones que motivaron la estimación del amparo, con fundamento en el artículo 50 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional.",
  "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber heard an amparo action against the National Commission of Indigenous Affairs (CONAI) and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA) for failing to conduct prior consultation with indigenous communities before approving the “Framework Agreement for Cooperation, Investment and Joint Operation” between the two entities. The petitioner argued that the Guatuso Community and other communities were not heard, thus violating their fundamental rights and the provisions of ILO Convention 169. The Chamber found that both Article 6 of Convention 169 and the reformed Article 9 of the Political Constitution require consulting indigenous peoples through appropriate procedures whenever legislative or administrative measures are foreseen that may affect them directly. The respondent authorities omitted such prior hearing, which is unlawful and breaches the Constitution. Accordingly, the Chamber granted the amparo, warning the authorities not to repeat the omissions that gave rise to the granting of the remedy, in accordance with Article 50 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law.",
  "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional",
  "date": "2007",
  "year": "2007",
  "topic_ids": [
    "indigenous-law-6172",
    "water-law"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "indigenous-law-6172",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "consulta previa",
    "Convenio 169 OIT",
    "comunidades indígenas",
    "CONAI",
    "AyA",
    "amparo",
    "Guatuso"
  ],
  "concept_anchors": [
    {
      "article": "Art. 6",
      "law": "Convenio 169 de la OIT"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 9",
      "law": "Constitución Política"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 50",
      "law": "Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 361",
      "law": "Ley General de la Administración Pública"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 13",
      "law": "Código Municipal"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "consulta previa",
    "Convenio 169 OIT",
    "comunidades indígenas",
    "amparo",
    "participación ciudadana",
    "CONAI",
    "AyA",
    "Guatuso",
    "derechos fundamentales"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "prior consultation",
    "ILO Convention 169",
    "indigenous communities",
    "amparo",
    "citizen participation",
    "CONAI",
    "AyA",
    "Guatuso",
    "fundamental rights"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "III.- La Sala Constitucional, en otras oportunidades, se ha referido sobre los alcances del Convenio 169 de la O.I.T. en relación con las comunidades indígenas y, en concreto, la obligación de contar con su participación, cada vez que se prevean medidas legislativas o administrativas susceptibles de afectarlas directamente, como es el caso concreto. En este sentido, el artículo 6° del Convenio aludido establece: … V.- Ahora bien, en el caso presente se tiene por demostrado que las autoridades de la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas y del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados … han omitido conceder una audiencia previa a las comunidades indígenas, pese a que es requerido por fuerza del artículo 9° constitucional y 6° del Convenio 169 de la O.I.T, todo lo cual sin duda es indebido y lesiona los derechos fundamentales de estas colectividades, razón por la cual lo procedente es declarar con lugar el recurso.",
  "excerpt_en": "III.- The Constitutional Chamber, on other occasions, has referred to the scope of ILO Convention 169 in relation to indigenous communities and, specifically, the obligation to ensure their participation whenever legislative or administrative measures are foreseen that may affect them directly, as in the present case. In this regard, Article 6 of the aforementioned Convention establishes: … V.- In the present case, it has been demonstrated that the authorities of the National Commission of Indigenous Affairs and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers … have omitted to grant a prior hearing to the indigenous communities, even though it is required by force of Article 9 of the Constitution and Article 6 of ILO Convention 169, all of which is undoubtedly improper and injures the fundamental rights of these communities, which is why it is appropriate to grant the amparo.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Granted",
    "label_es": "Con lugar",
    "summary_en": "The amparo is granted due to the unlawful omission of prior consultation with indigenous communities in the agreement between AyA and CONAI.",
    "summary_es": "Se declara con lugar el amparo por la omisión ilegítima de consulta previa a las comunidades indígenas en el convenio entre AyA y CONAI."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando III",
      "quote_en": "Article 6 of the aforementioned Convention establishes: 1. In applying the provisions of this Convention, governments shall: a) consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly;",
      "quote_es": "el artículo 6° del Convenio aludido establece: 1. Al aplicar las disposiciones del presente Convenio, los gobiernos deberán: a) consultar a los pueblos interesados, mediante procedimientos apropiados y en particular a través de sus instituciones representativas, cada vez que se prevean medidas legislativas o administrativas susceptibles de afectarles directamente;"
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando IV",
      "quote_en": "…the incorporation of the principle of participation in the Government of the Republic… radically expands the content of the democratic principle recognized in Article 1 and deployed throughout the Political Constitution…",
      "quote_es": "…la incorporación del principio de participación en el Gobierno de la República… amplía radicalmente el contenido del principio democrático reconocido en el artículo 1º y desplegado en toda la Constitución Política…"
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando V",
      "quote_en": "it has been demonstrated that the authorities … have omitted to grant a prior hearing to the indigenous communities, even though it is required by force of Article 9 of the Constitution and Article 6 of ILO Convention 169, all of which is undoubtedly improper and injures the fundamental rights of these communities",
      "quote_es": "se tiene por demostrado que las autoridades … han omitido conceder una audiencia previa a las comunidades indígenas, pese a que es requerido por fuerza del artículo 9° constitucional y 6° del Convenio 169 de la O.I.T, todo lo cual sin duda es indebido y lesiona los derechos fundamentales de estas colectividades"
    }
  ],
  "cites": [],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0007-121480",
  "tier": 2,
  "_editorial_citation_count": 0,
  "regulations_by_article": null,
  "amendments_by_article": null,
  "dictamen_by_article": null,
  "concordancias_by_article": null,
  "afectaciones_by_article": null,
  "resoluciones_by_article": null,
  "cited_by_votos": [],
  "cited_norms": [],
  "cited_norms_inverted": [
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "norm_num": "6227",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "02/05/1978"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-38533",
      "norm_num": "7135",
      "norm_name": "Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "11/10/1989"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-40197",
      "norm_num": "7794",
      "norm_name": "Código Municipal",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "30/04/1998"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "“I.- El\r\nrecurrente reclama la violación de sus derechos fundamentales, en particular de\r\nlas disposiciones del Convenio 169 de la O.I.T., por\r\nla omisión de las autoridades de la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas y\r\ndel Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (a propósito de la\r\naprobación del \"Convenio marco de cooperación, inversión y operación\r\nconjunta entre el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados y la\r\nComisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas\") de conceder una audiencia\r\nprevia a las comunidades indígenas. En concreto, acusa que no se escuchó\r\npreviamente a la Comunidad de Guatuso. En su criterio, lo anterior es ilegítimo\r\ny lesiona el Derecho de la Constitución.” \n\r\n\r\n\n“…III.- La Sala Constitucional, en otras oportunidades,\r\nse ha referido sobre los alcances del Convenio 169 de la O.I.T.\r\nen relación con las comunidades indígenas y, en concreto, la obligación de\r\ncontar con su participación, cada vez que se prevean medidas legislativas o\r\nadministrativas susceptibles de afectarlas directamente, como es el caso\r\nconcreto. En este sentido, el artículo 6° del Convenio aludido establece: \n\r\n\r\n\n“Artículo\r\n6 \n\r\n\r\n\n1 . Al aplicar las\r\ndisposiciones del presente Convenio, los gobiernos deberán: \n\r\n\r\n\na) consultar\r\na los pueblos interesados, mediante procedimientos apropiados y en particular a\r\ntravés de sus instituciones representativas, cada vez que se prevean medidas\r\nlegislativas o administrativas susceptibles de afectarles directamente; \n\r\n\r\n\nb) establecer\r\nlos medios a través de los cuales los pueblos interesados puedan participar\r\nlibremente, por lo menos en la misma medida que otros sectores de la población,\r\ny a todos los niveles en la adopción de decisiones en instituciones electivas y\r\norganismos administrativos y de otra índole responsables de políticas y programas\r\nque les conciernan; \n\r\n\r\n\nc) establecer\r\nlos medios para el pleno desarrollo de las instituciones e iniciativas de esos\r\npueblos, y en los casos apropiados proporcionar los recursos necesarios para\r\neste fin. \n\r\n\r\n\n2. Las\r\nconsultas llevadas a cabo en aplicación de este Convenio deberán efectuarse de\r\nbuena fe y de una manera apropiada a las circunstancias, con la finalidad de\r\nllegar a un acuerdo o lograr el consentimiento acerca de las medidas\r\npropuestas.” \n\r\n\r\n\nSobre el\r\nparticular, la Sala Constitucional en la sentencia N°2003-03485\r\nde las 14:07 hrs. de 2 de mayo de 2003, dispuso: \n\r\n\r\n\n“IV.- Como ya la Sala señaló, el Derecho de la\r\nConstitución, instaura la responsabilidad del Estado de dotar a los pueblos\r\nindígenas de instrumentos adecuados que les garanticen su derecho a participar\r\nen la toma de decisiones que les atañen, y a organizarse en instituciones\r\nelectivas, organismos administrativos y de otra índole responsables de\r\npolíticas y programas que les conciernan (artículos 6 y 33 del Convenio Nº 169\r\nde OIT). Resulta entonces que el legislador debe diseñar mecanismos jurídicos\r\nque les permitan ejercer plenamente ese derecho. Las normas en esta materia han\r\nde orientarse en el sentido de permitir una amplia y organizada\r\nparticipación de los indígenas.” \n\r\n\r\n\nIV.- De otra parte, se debe mencionar que con\r\nla reforma del artículo 9º constitucional, por obra de la Ley Nº8364 de 1º de julio de 2003, se ha incorporado el\r\nprincipio de participación en el Gobierno de la República, con lo cual, se ha\r\noperado una modificación sustancial en la forma del poder. La incorporación de\r\nese principio en el artículo 9º implica mucho más que un asunto formal,\r\npuramente adjetivo, de añadir un nuevo calificativo al Gobierno, entendido como\r\nconjunto de los poderes públicos (v. sentencia Nº919-99);\r\nse trata de un cambio sustancial en el diseño de la democracia y amplía\r\nradicalmente el contenido del principio democrático reconocido en el artículo\r\n1º y desplegado en toda la Constitución Política, al sumar al principio y\r\nmecanismos de representación en los que ha descansado tradicionalmente nuestra\r\ndemocracia, el elemento de la participación ciudadana. La Constitución,\r\npreviamente reformada, ha creado mecanismos específicos de participación\r\nciudadana, como el referendum y la iniciativa\r\npopular; por otra parte, diversas leyes anteriores al nuevo texto\r\nconstitucional contemplan también otros mecanismos mediante los cuales las\r\npersonas o colectividades intervienen en la toma de decisiones públicas, así,\r\npor ejemplo, el artículo 361 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública\r\nincorpora la audiencia a entidades representativas de intereses de carácter\r\ngeneral o corporativo en los procedimientos de elaboración de normas de\r\ncarácter general; en el artículo 13 del Código Municipal, se contemplan los\r\nplebiscitos, referendums y cabildos. Así, la\r\nexistencia de esos instrumentos a nivel infraconstitucional\r\nson signos de la existencia de la democracia participativa. \n\r\n\r\n\nV.- Ahora\r\nbien, en el caso presente se tiene por demostrado que las autoridades de la\r\nComisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas y del Instituto Costarricense de\r\nAcueductos y Alcantarillados (con motivo de la aprobación del \"Convenio\r\nmarco de cooperación, inversión y operación conjunta entre el Instituto\r\nCostarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados y la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos\r\nIndígenas\"), han omitido conceder una audiencia previa a las\r\ncomunidades indígenas, pese a que es requerido por fuerza del artículo 9°\r\nconstitucional y 6° del Convenio 169 de la O.I.T,\r\ntodo lo cual sin duda es indebido y lesiona los derechos fundamentales de estas\r\ncolectividades, razón por la cual lo procedente es declarar con lugar el\r\nrecurso. En efecto, aunque los recurridos alegan en su informe que la\r\nadministración de los recursos hídricos le corresponde a las asociaciones de\r\ndesarrollo indígena, se echa de menos la concesión de una audiencia previa a la\r\nsuscripción del convenio aludido, lo cual es ilegítimo y lesiona el Derecho de\r\nla Constitución. Por lo expuesto, se debe estimar el amparo, no sin antes\r\nadvertir a los recurridos, con sustento en lo dispuesto por el artículo 50 de\r\nla Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, que no deben incurrir a futuro en los\r\nactos u omisiones que dieron mérito a la acogida de este asunto.”",
  "body_en_text": "**I.-** The petitioner complains of the violation of his fundamental rights, in particular of the provisions of ILO Convention 169, due to the omission of the authorities of the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas and the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (regarding the approval of the \"Framework agreement for cooperation, investment, and joint operation between the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados and the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas\") to grant a prior hearing to the indigenous communities. Specifically, he accuses that the Comunidad de Guatuso was not heard beforehand. In his view, the foregoing is illegitimate and violates the Law of the Constitution.”\n\n**…III.-** The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), on other occasions, has referred to the scope of ILO Convention 169 in relation to indigenous communities and, specifically, the obligation to ensure their participation, whenever legislative or administrative measures likely to affect them directly are envisaged, as is the specific case. In this regard, Article 6 of the aforementioned Convention establishes:\n\n**“Article 6**\n\n1. In applying the provisions of this Convention, governments shall:\n\na) consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly;\n\nb) establish means by which these peoples can freely participate, to at least the same extent as other sectors of the population, at all levels of decision-making in elective institutions and administrative and other bodies responsible for policies and programmes which concern them;\n\nc) establish means for the full development of these peoples' own institutions and initiatives, and in appropriate cases provide the resources necessary for this purpose.\n\n2. The consultations carried out in application of this Convention shall be undertaken, in good faith and in a form appropriate to the circumstances, with the objective of achieving agreement or consent to the proposed measures.”\n\nIn this regard, the Constitutional Chamber, in judgment No. 2003-03485 of 2:07 p.m. on 2 May 2003, ordered:\n\n*“IV.- As the Chamber has already noted, the Law of the Constitution establishes the State's responsibility to provide indigenous peoples with adequate instruments that guarantee their right to participate in decision-making on matters that concern them, and to organize themselves in elective institutions, administrative and other bodies responsible for policies and programmes that concern them (Articles 6 and 33 of ILO Convention No. 169). It follows, then, that the legislator must design legal mechanisms that allow them to fully exercise that right. The norms in this matter must be oriented towards allowing broad and organized participation of the indigenous people.”*\n\n**IV.-** On the other hand, it must be mentioned that with the reform of Article 9 of the Constitution, through Law No. 8364 of 1 July 2003, the principle of participation in the Government of the Republic has been incorporated, thereby effecting a substantial modification in the form of power. The incorporation of this principle in Article 9 implies much more than a formal, purely adjectival matter of adding a new qualifier to the Government, understood as the assembly of public powers (see judgment No. 919-99); it represents a substantial change in the design of democracy and radically expands the content of the democratic principle recognized in Article 1 and deployed throughout the Political Constitution, by adding to the principle and mechanisms of representation on which our democracy has traditionally rested, the element of citizen participation. The Constitution, previously reformed, has created specific mechanisms for citizen participation, such as the referendum and the popular initiative; on the other hand, various laws predating the new constitutional text also contemplate other mechanisms through which individuals or collectivities intervene in public decision-making, thus, for example, Article 361 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública incorporates the hearing of representative entities of general or corporate interests in the procedures for drafting general rules; in Article 13 of the Código Municipal, plebiscites, referendums, and open town councils (cabildos) are contemplated. Thus, the existence of these instruments at the infra-constitutional level are signs of the existence of participatory democracy.\n\n**V.-** Now, in the present case, it is established that the authorities of the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas and the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (on the occasion of the approval of the \"Framework agreement for cooperation, investment, and joint operation between the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados and the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas\"), have omitted to grant a prior hearing to the indigenous communities, despite it being required by force of Article 9 of the Constitution and Article 6 of ILO Convention 169, all of which is undoubtedly improper and violates the fundamental rights of these collectivities, for which reason it is appropriate to grant the amparo action. Indeed, although the respondents allege in their report that the administration of water resources corresponds to the indigenous development associations, the failure to grant a prior hearing before the signing of the aforementioned agreement is conspicuous, which is illegitimate and violates the Law of the Constitution. Based on the foregoing, the amparo must be granted, not without first admonishing the respondents, based on the provisions of Article 50 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, not to incur in the future in the acts or omissions that gave merit to the acceptance of this matter.\n\n**I.-** The petitioner claims the violation of his fundamental rights, in particular of the provisions of Convention 169 of the I.L.O., by the omission of the authorities of the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas and the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (regarding the approval of the \"*Convenio marco de cooperación, inversión y operación conjunta entre el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados y la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas*\") to grant a prior hearing to the indigenous communities. Specifically, he alleges that the Community of Guatuso was not previously heard. In his opinion, the foregoing is illegitimate and violates the Law of the Constitution.\n\n**…III.-** The Constitutional Chamber, on other occasions, has referred to the scope of Convention 169 of the I.L.O. in relation to indigenous communities and, specifically, the obligation to ensure their participation, whenever legislative or administrative measures are foreseen that may directly affect them, as is the specific case. In this regard, Article 6 of the aforementioned Convention establishes:\n\n**“Article 6**\n\n**1 .** *In applying the provisions of this Convention, governments shall:*\n\n*a) consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly;*\n\n*b) establish means by which these peoples can freely participate, to at least the same extent as other sectors of the population, at all levels of decision-making in elective institutions and administrative and other bodies responsible for policies and programmes which concern them;*\n\n*c) establish means for the full development of these peoples' own institutions and initiatives, and in appropriate cases provide the resources necessary for this purpose.*\n\n**2.** *The consultations carried out in application of this Convention shall be undertaken, in good faith and in a form appropriate to the circumstances, with the objective of achieving agreement or consent to the proposed measures.”*\n\nOn this matter, the Constitutional Chamber in judgment N°2003-03485 of 14:07 hrs. of May 2, 2003, held:\n\n*“**IV.-** As the Chamber has already indicated, the Law of the Constitution establishes the State's responsibility to provide indigenous peoples with adequate instruments that guarantee their right to participate in the making of decisions that concern them, and to organize themselves in elective institutions, administrative bodies, and others responsible for policies and programmes that concern them (Articles 6 and 33 of Convention No. 169 of the ILO). It follows then that the legislator must design legal mechanisms that allow them to fully exercise that right. The norms in this area must be oriented in the sense of allowing broad and organized participation by indigenous people.”*\n\n**IV.-** On the other hand, it should be mentioned that with the reform of Article 9 of the Constitution, by operation of Law Nº8364 of July 1, 2003, the principle of participation has been incorporated into the Government of the Republic, thereby bringing about a substantial modification in the form of power. The incorporation of this principle into Article 9 implies much more than a formal, purely adjectival matter of adding a new qualifier to the Government, understood as the set of public powers (see judgment Nº919-99); it constitutes a substantial change in the design of democracy and radically expands the content of the democratic principle recognized in Article 1 and displayed throughout the Political Constitution, by adding the element of citizen participation to the principle and mechanisms of representation on which our democracy has traditionally rested. The Constitution, previously reformed, has created specific mechanisms of citizen participation, such as the referendum and popular initiative; on the other hand, various laws prior to the new constitutional text also contemplate other mechanisms through which persons or communities intervene in public decision-making, for example, Article 361 of the General Law of Public Administration incorporates the hearing to representative entities of general or corporate interests in the procedures for drafting norms of a general nature; in Article 13 of the Código Municipal, plebiscites, referendums, and town hall meetings are contemplated. Thus, the existence of these instruments at the infra-constitutional level are signs of the existence of participatory democracy.\n\n**V.-** Now then, in the present case it has been proven that the authorities of the Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas and the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (on the occasion of the approval of the \"*Convenio marco de cooperación, inversión y operación conjunta entre el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados y la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas*\"), have omitted to grant a prior hearing to the indigenous communities, despite it being required by force of Article 9 of the Constitution and Article 6 of Convention 169 of the I.L.O., all of which is undoubtedly improper and violates the fundamental rights of these communities, for which reason it is appropriate to declare the appeal granted. Indeed, although the respondents allege in their report that the administration of water resources corresponds to the indigenous development associations, the granting of a prior hearing before the signing of the aforementioned agreement is lacking, which is illegitimate and violates the Law of the Constitution. For the foregoing reasons, the amparo must be granted, not without first warning the respondents, based on the provisions of Article 50 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, that they must not incur in the future in the acts or omissions that gave merit to the acceptance of this matter.”"
}